Create a separate "XLibre and Desktop Environments" wiki page

[callmetango]

Citing from X11Libre/xserver/issues/365:

Update https://github.com/X11Libre/xserver/wiki/Are-We-XLibre-Yet%3F. We don't support this.

https://community.kde.org/Distributions/Packaging_Recommendations#Packages_to_avoid_installing

Packages to avoid installing

• alternative X11 servers, like X11Libre. We only support Xorg's xserver, both for Xwayland and for the X11 session.

---

Having had a look at it, the current wording at Desktop environments - Are We XLibre Yet? - X11Libre Wiki may indeed imply that the desktop environments support XLibre and this is vague to partly not true. I think we should change the perspective a little: What is important for us and our users is the "someone has tried XLibre together with ... {further on: this thing} and it worked“ or shorter: ”XLibre works with this thing" aspect.

The fact that the developers of this thing advise against it should be recorded in the remarks. So that the user can decide for himself what and whether he wants to use this thing and what risks are associated with it.

I'd like to suggest to remove the desktop environment aspect from the “Are we XLibre yet?” page and create a separate page “XLibre and Desktop Environments” where the “XLibre works with this thing” aspect can be discussed further. Without the “Supportive” wording.

@probonopd What do you think?

@kkmzero CC

[kkmzero]

I can't speak about creating separate page for DEs because I don't know how much information will be accumulated over time. For now I think it's fine but that decision is not up to me, just sharing my opinion.

In case of DEs, I would say that users probably don't care if X.Org works, they most likely care about XLibre only. However, DEs that won't support X.Org like GNOME or Budgie should be mentioned for obvious reasons.

I agree that we should inform users more about whether XLibre is available and/or functional in given distro/DE rather than focus on whether their maintainers are supportive of XLibre or not. Maybe information about whether developers of distros/DEs support XLibre or not can be in separate column as "Official Support" (Yes/No/Maybe). There's nothing preventing people from making unofficial packages of XLibre for, let's say, Alpine Linux. Input from people who actually try and use XLibre is very valuable and should be part of the documentation for benefit of other users.

[b-aaz]

I agree, there should be 2 columns, One the official stance of the project and one for if XLibre is available for it in general as 3rd party or official packages.

[CustardEddy]

Concur. Claims of a 'lack of official support', like KDE's, should be accompanied by a clear indication that the X Protocol makes their position somewhat irrelevant. Which was part of the reason for the fork in the first place!

They could potentially include spoiler code, but that's very naughty and puts them in a tenuous legal position (they're already getting flak from the EU over accessibility, apparently...).

[probonopd]

When it comes to desktop environments, I think the line is "supports X11" vs. "does not support X11". If something supports X11, then it should work with all X11 servers (read: if it works on X.Org but not XLibre, it might well be considered as a bug in XLibre).

As to KDE, I am not sure whether one random wiki edit really reflects the official stance of the KDE community. Is the person who made the edit speaking in any official capacity?

I'd like to suggest to remove the desktop environment aspect from the “Are we XLibre yet?” page and create a separate page “XLibre and Desktop Environments” where the “XLibre works with this thing” aspect can be discussed further. Without the “Supportive” wording.

@probonopd What do you think?

If you'd like to move it to a separate page I'm not against it, but generally I prefer the simplest solution (one page) because it imho makes it easier to link to and find the relevant information.

[kkmzero]

As to KDE, I am not sure whether one random wiki edit really reflects the official stance of the KDE community. Is the person who made the edit speaking in any official capacity?

I know the name of the person who made the edit to their wiki, or at least I assume I know it, and from what I could gather online, this person is supposedly KWin and Wayland developer and they said few rather negative things about XLibre previously. It does not seem to me as "some random no-name person made an edit on KDE's wiki" but as KWin developer did it so it has more weight to me personally. I very well could be wrong though, so if anyone knows someone in KDE who would be willing to tell us clearly that KDE as a project is against supporting XLibre, that would be optimal and we could document it. You made good point though, thank you.

[callmetango]

@probonopd You really made me think how to counter the "simplest solution (one page)" argument. 😆😉 That still needs a little time.

[callmetango]

The current amount of information is IMHO manageable when presented on a single page. If this gets way more then we should split the page.